The Mother and Baby Homes report is a disgrace.

Its authors seem to be incapable of finding evidence of anything ... no matter how many witnesses come forward & how much has already been published.

No forced adoption, no money changing hands, no racism, no Cabinet discussions.

Maybe they are using some strange technical definition of evidence which excludes eyewitness testimony, receipts, minutes...

Perhaps "evidence" actually means "frogspawn", not what the rest of us mean by "evidence".

There is no frogspawn of Cabinet discussions?

Maybe they set themselves some clever rules which stopped them looking at things that everyone who wants to know has known for years or in some cases decades.

How else is it possible for two legal ppl and a historian to imagine that Cabinet never discussed unmarried mothers?

It might be good to see a strong statement repudiating the conclusions of the report from historians, lawyers, social scientists, retired judges - the sort of "expertise" that this document lays claim to.

Unless of course we get a "clarification" telling us that "evidence" actually means "frogspawn".

You have to wonder who they think is going to take this stuff seriously.

And if they don't feel any tiny little twinges of shame at saying this to the survivors.

H/t @Cballantine for that thread on Cabinet